Means for Mind Control in the Social Imagination...

I have blogged many times about mind control either as mass media manipulation such as propaganda, mass hypnosis, herd mentality and the art of persuasion to name a few. None of these strategies are new. 

Military architects and social justice movement leaders not excluding marketers have used them for years. Let's take look at six means of mind control referred to as conditioning. These 6 points are being shared from a renown social observer org.- see link below...

1. Keep the person unaware of what is going on how she or he is being changed a step at a time. Potential new members are led, step by step, through a behavioral-change program without being aware of the final agenda or full content of the group.

2. Control the person’s social and/or physical environment; especially control the person’s time.

3. Systematically create a sense of powerlessness in the person.

4. Manipulate a system of rewards, punishments and experiences in such a way as to inhibit behavior that reflects the person’s former social identity.

5. Manipulate a system of rewards, punishments, and experiences in order to promote learning the group’s ideology or belief system and group-approved behaviors. Good behavior, demonstrating an understanding and acceptance of the group’s beliefs, and compliance are rewarded, while questioning, expressing doubts or criticizing are met with disapproval, redress and possible rejection. If one expresses a question, they are made to feel that there is something inherently wrong with them to be questioning. 

The point is, this kind of ideological conditioning is happening everywhere, every day, on the job, among friends, even among families. The pressure to conform is intense, because nothing is more threatening to devoted cultists, or members of totalitarian ideological movements, than those who challenge their fundamental beliefs, confront them with facts, or otherwise demonstrate that their “reality” isn’t reality at all, but, rather, a delusional, paranoid fiction.

The key difference between how this works in cults and totalitarian ideological movements is that, usually, a cult is a subcultural group, and thus non-cult-members have the power of the ideology of the dominant society to draw on when resisting the mind-control tactics of the cult, and attempting to deprogram its members … whereas, in our case, this balance of power is inverted. 

Totalitarian ideological movements have the power of governments, the media, the police, the culture industry, academia, and the compliant masses on their side. And, thus, they do not need to persuade anyone. They have the power to dictate “reality.” Only cults operating in total isolation, like Jim Jones’ People’s Temple in Guyana, enjoy this level of control over their members.

This pressure to conform, this ideological conditioning, must be fiercely resisted, regardless of the consequences, both publicly and in our private lives, or the “New Normal” will certainly become our new reality which brings us to number six…

6. Put forth a closed system of logic and an authoritarian structure that permits no feedback and refuses to be modified except by leadership approval or executive order. The group has a top-down, pyramid structure. The leaders must have verbal ways of never losing.

 

 

 

*Online source ~  https://consentfactory.org

The Consent Factory, Inc. remains fanatically committed to the establishment and maintenance of global neoliberalism (i.e., laissez faire capitalism), and thus opposes all forms of despotism that prevent our clients from forcing into debt, aggressively privatizing, and then ruthlessly exploiting whatever markets they (i.e., these murderous despots) control. In other words, we don’t care how you oppress your own people at home, as long as you’re playing ball with our clients globally.

What is Communism in the Social Imagination...?

Communism, political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society.

The primary point of difference between capitalism and communism is regarding the ownership of 'means of production' or resources in general. Communism shuns private/individual ownership of land or any vital resources. ... On the other hand, capitalism believes in private ownership of land and means of production.

Today, you can hear people touting communism. Why? Because, they don't really know what it is or what it means. They have been led to believe that its a fair and just system where everyone gets along and where everyone gets what they want when they want it. But, even if that last part was more like... gets what they want when they deserve it according to their work for the State, the promoters of this ideology would naively think that's fair and just. What such people don't recognize is that man is a fallen creature and his fallen nature is not to work for anyone but him/herself. 

As for the good of society, well, they like to make it look like they are working for the good of society but they are working for themselves so that the State will continue to raise them up... not the peon, the one that really should benefit. And even if they had a government job pushing papers that say you will get what you want ... they do it so that they get what they want first which is power to control your life. You've seen how the communist loves to virtue signal, haven't you?

Effectively, in communist theory and practice, the welfare of society is above individual welfare. It sounds good but if you don't appear to be useful or good for society at large, THE STATE, then you must be the problem and you must be corrected if possible. That means, the government runs your life. They make decisions for you and everyone else. The STATE must be sovereign in this or else. That is the communist idea of fairness ...yes, really.

Communism is an ideology that thinks man has created the right system (communism) for everyone and it should be the ultimate goal for humankind. Most people have no or little knowledge of this truth. Thus, they often confuse it with the softer or gentler ism... socialism. But what is socialism? Its a kind of blend of capitalism and communism. There is more government control over people's lives but not total control as it must be with communism.  

In the communist system, the government is responsible for all decisions; whereas, the system of capitalism leaves the decisions and regulation more or less to the private sector. The main goal of communism is an equal outcome for the whole society; that means you get a pair of shoes on the same day everyone else does. The main objective of capitalist is to offer equal opportunities. And, out of that comes more opportunities to get a pair of shoes any day of the week. 

Historically, most of the communist systems have been led by a one- party state with the function as a supervisory economic body that controls most aspects of people’s lives. This fact is probably one reason too, that capitalism had a more long term success. Capitalism works with and for democracy. Yes, really! Because, people have a vested interest in the place where they are/find themselves living and working. 

In that place, people naturally want to have a say in what happens to their life, their children's lives and to their vested interest - property i.e. So, they get involved in their community... its called grass roots democracy. It is driven by free elections that lead to the restriction of government’s actual power over the individual and their power to interfer in private lives. 

Out of this lack of government control/restrictions comes more freedom as in civil liberties... a kind of reward for having a vested interest in the place where you are and live. The very idea of being a free individual, able to make decisions for yourself is a basic human need.

Because of that need, you are encouraged to participate in self-governance (as is everyone else around you) and you do so recognizing your civil liberties that allow you and everyone else to freely conduct commerce and engage in conservation freely in order to protect your interests; and since everyone is able to have vested interests in the place where they are, no matter how big or small, there is a greater tendency to flourish, to be positive and prosperous. 

In case you didn't know, the freedom of speech sits right beside the right for security which is probably the most prominent human basic need. If you didn't have free speech, you could never make a case to protect your life let alone your vested interests.

Because of these valuable basic human needs, the advantages of capitalism has led to worldwide success. The consumer’s choice is free and individual. This freedom of choice led to an increasing competition, which further led to better quality of life and enhanced services. 

Ah... but for you communist dolts... you will end up eating each other... just look at the history of communist societies. They devour each other because there isn't anything else to look forward to...

Pulling the Wool over your Eyes in the Social Imagination...

 

Health does not come by injection...so why pull the wool? 

This commentary comes from a 'fellow social media blogger', Christian Elliot. Now, I don't know him personally but from one blogger to another what he writes about is close to my imagination. So, here's a share... from one to another interested in truth.

The only industry in the world that bears no liability for injuries or deaths resulting from their products, are vaccine makers.

First established in 1986 with the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, and reinforced by the PREP Act, vaccine makers cannot be sued, even if they are shown to be negligent.The covid-vaccine makers are allowed to create a one-size-fits-all product, with no testing on sub-populations (i.e. people with specific health conditions), and yet they are unwilling to accept any responsibility for any adverse events or deaths their products cause.

If a company is not willing to stand behind their product as safe, especially one they rushed to market and skipped animal trials on, I am not willing to take a chance on their product. No liability. No trust.

The checkered past of a few vaccine companies. The four major companies who are making these covid vaccines are/have either:

1. Never brought a vaccine to market before covid (Moderna and Johnson & Johnson).
2. Are serial felons (Pfizer, and Astra Zeneca).
3. Are both (Johnson & Johnson).

Moderna had been trying to "Modernize our RNA" (thus the company name)--for years, but had never successfully brought ANY product to market--how nice for them to get a major cash infusion from the government to keep trying.

In fact, all major vaccine makers (save Moderna) have paid out tens of billions of dollars in damages for other products they brought to market when they knew those products would cause injuries and death--see Vioxx, Bextra, Celebrex, Thalidomide, and Opioids as a few examples.

If drug companies willfully choose to put harmful products in the market, when they can be sued, why would we trust any product where they have NO liability?

In case it hasn't sunk in, let me reiterate...3 of the 4 covid vaccine makers have been sued for products they brought to market even though they knew injuries and deaths would result.

Given the free pass from liability, and the checkered past of these companies, why would we assume that all their vaccines are safe and made completely above board?

There have been many attempts to make viral vaccines in the past that ended in utter failure, which is why we did not have a coronavirus vaccine in 2020.

In the 1960's, scientists attempted to make an RSV (Respiratory Syncytial Virus) vaccine for infants.  that study, they skipped animal trials because they weren't necessary back then. In the end, the vaccinated infants got much sicker than the unvaccinated infants when exposed to the virus in nature, with 80% of the vaccinated infants requiring hospitalization and two of them died.

After 2000, scientists made many attempts to create coronavirus vaccines. For the past 20 years, all ended in failure because the animals in the clinical trials got very sick and many died, just like the children in the 1960's.

The typical pattern in such studies found that children and animals produced beautiful antibody responses after being vaccinated. However, the problem came when the children and animals were exposed to the wild version of the virus.

When that happened, an unexplained phenomenon called Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) also known as Vaccine Enhanced Disease (VED) occurred where the immune system produced a "cytokine storm" (i.e. overwhelmingly attacked the body), and the children/animals died.

Here's the lingering issue...The vaccine makers have no data to suggest their rushed vaccines have overcome that problem. In other words, never before has any attempt to make a coronavirus vaccine been successful, nor has the gene-therapy technology that is mRNA "vaccines" been safely brought to market, but hey, since they had billions of dollars in government funding, I'm sure they figured that out.

When vaccine makers submitted their papers to the FDA for the Emergency Use Authorization (Note: An EUA is not the same as a full FDA approval), among the many "Data Gaps" they reported was that they have nothing in their trials to suggest they overcame that pesky problem of Vaccine Enhanced Disease.

They simply don't know--i.e. they have no idea if the vaccines they've made will also produce the same cytokine storm (and deaths) as previous attempts at such products.

In case you think I'm making this up, or want to see the actual documents sent to the FDA by Pfizer and Moderna for their Emergency Use Authorization, you can check out this, or this respectively. The data gaps can be found starting with page 46 and 48 respectively.

For now let's turn our eyes to the raw data the vaccine makers used to submit for emergency use authorization.

Would you like to see the raw data that produced the "90% and 95% effective" claims touted in the news? Me too...But they won't let us see that data. There were “3,410 total cases of suspected, but unconfirmed covid-19 in the overall study population, 1,594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1,816 in the placebo group.”

Did they fail to do science in their scientific study by not verifying a major variable?Could they not test those "suspected but unconfirmed" cases to find out if they had covid? Apparently not.Why not test all 3,410 participants for the sake of accuracy? Can we only guess they didn't test because it would mess up their "90-95% effective" claims?

Where's the FDA? Would it not be prudent for the FDA, to expect (demand) that the vaccine makers test people who have "covid-like symptoms," and release their raw data so outside, third-parties could examine how the manufacturers justified the numbers?

Why did the FDA not require that? Isn't that the entire purpose of the FDA anyway? Good question. Obviously, with products that have only been on the market a few months, we have no long-term safety data. In other words, we have no idea what this product will do in the body months or years from now--for ANY population.

Given all the risks above (risks that ALL pharmaceutical products have), would it not be prudent to wait to see if the worst-case scenarios have indeed been avoided? Would it not make sense to want to fill those pesky "data gaps" before we try to give this to every man, woman, and child on the planet?

Moreover, those who are planning to take or have taken the vaccine don't know is that because these products are still in clinical trials, anyone who gets the shot is now part of the clinical trial. They are part of the experiment.

Those (like me) who do not take it, are part of the control group.Time will tell how this experiment works out. But, you may be asking, if the vaccines are causing harm, wouldn't we be seeing that all over the news? Surely, the FDA would step in and pause the distribution?

 Aren't these vaccines supposed to be what we've been waiting for to "go back to normal"?  Why do you think we're getting all these conflicting messages about needing to practice social distancing and wear masks AFTER we get a vaccine?

The reason is because these vaccines were never designed to stop transmission OR infection.If you don't believe me, I refer you again to the papers submitted to the FDA I linked to above. The primary endpoint (what the vaccines are meant to accomplish) is to lower your symptoms. Sounds like just about every other drug on the market right? That's it...lowering your symptoms is the big payoff we've been waiting for.

Does that seem completely pointless to anyone but me?

1. It can't stop us from spreading the virus.
2. It can't stop the virus from infecting us once we have it.
3. To get the vaccine is to accept all the risk of these experimental products and the best it might do is lower symptoms?

If we're worried about asymptomatic spreaders, would the vaccine not make it more likely that we are creating asymptomatic spread? If it indeed reduces symptoms, anyone who gets it might not even know they are sick and thus they are more likely to spread the virus, right?

 For what it's worth, I've heard many people say the side effects of the vaccine (especially the second dose) are worse than catching covid. Guess what? You get vaccinated and you still catch covid.

According to the CDC's own numbers, covid has a 99.74% survival rate. Why would I take a risk on a product, that doesn't stop infection or transmission, to help me overcome a cold that has a .26% chance of killing me--actually in my age range is has about a .1% chance of killing me (and .01% chance of killing my kids), but let's not split hairs here...

What has happened to the scientific method of always challenging our assumptions? What happened to lively debate in this country, or at least in Western society? Why did anyone who disagrees with the WHO, or the CDC get censored so heavily?

Is the science of public health a religion now, or is science supposed to be about debate? If someone says "the science is settled" that's how I know I'm dealing with someone who is closed minded.

 By definition science (especially biological science) is never settled. If it was, it would be dogma, not science. If lockdowns work, I want to do my part and stay home. If masks work, I want to wear them.

 If social distancing is effective, I want to comply. But, if there is evidence they don't (masks for example), I want to hear that evidence too. If highly-credentialed scientists have different opinions, I want to know what they think. Don't you?

I want a chance to hear their arguments and make up my own mind. I don't think I'm the smartest person in the world, but I think I can think. I for one think there's a lot more that we have in common than what separates us.

We all want to live in a world of freedom. We all want to do our part to help others and to live well. We all want the right to express our opinions without fearing we'll be censored or viciously attacked. We all deserve to have the access to the facts so we can make informed decisions.

 

By Christian Elliot ~

https://www.deconstructingconventional.com/post/18-reason-i-won-t-be-getting-a-covid-vaccine?